newprotest.org: NUKES, JAPAN, AND WWII

NUKES, JAPAN, AND WWII

September 14, 2006
by: jovial_cynic
I've been in a debate with a fellow that goes by "Concerned Citizen" over at Mark Glesne's blog about nationalism, and my general disdain for it. Somehow, the conversation spiraled out of control, and we're currently debating the United States' use of nuclear bombs on Japan. That got brought up because this Concerned Citizen argued that the production and use of chemical and biological weapons by "evil" countries was immoral, so I added that perhaps the use of nuclear bombs isn't any better.

So... he posts this:

We dropped an nuclear weapon on a fanatical enemy in a time of war when they refused to surrender. We dropped the second one for the same reasons. We dropped a nuclear weapon to save the millions of lives that would have been lost if we had to take Japan conventionally.

And that seems to help him sleep at night when he goes over all of his reasons for why America is so fantastic. Our dropping a couple of nuclear bombs on men, women, and children served to prevent the loss of millions of lives.

I did some of my own research to see what the history books say about the bombing of Japan, and it looks like some high-ranking folks disagree with the Concerned Citizen.

Read through that page and see what some high-ranking folks seemed to think about using nuclear bombs on a country that apparently was going to surrender anyway. There's some pretty weighty comments. In particular, I think this one is pretty damning:

ADMIRAL WILLIAM D. LEAHY
(Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman)

"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.

"The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."


So... yeah. There you go. There's your history lesson for the day.
np category: politics
tags:

COMMENTS for NUKES, JAPAN, AND WWII


Kristen said:
RYC-Duly noted and changed. :) Someone once put my full name as a link to my site and I made them change it immediately. Ack.

Yeah, I've been reading Slate and Salon for years.

September 15, 2006


Luke said:
Well I'm not sure I entirely agree. The response to Japan's attack was certainly over the top, but no countries have attacked the US since then. I think that the dropping of the atomic bomb might have set a precident of America's 'badassness' and our willingness to protect our country at ALL costs. That has probably aided in our peace over the years. Whether the bomb was morally right to drop or not is always going to be debatable.

I think one would have done the trick, not sure why the second one was dropped though...

And for the record I HATE slate.com. Never read something good or inspiring there. Always rhetoric and democrap.

September 15, 2006


jovial_cynic said:
I enjoy reading both Slate and Salon. But I'm sure you knew that.

I'm not sure that there's any moral imperative to showing off a nation's "badassness" to deter future attack. It might be an effective military strategy... but dropping an atomic bomb on women and children who aren't involved doesn't seem like a good idea.

September 15, 2006


ed hardy uhren said:
Well I'm not sure I entirely agree. The response to Japan's attack was certainly over the top, but no countries have attacked the US since then. I think that the dropping of the atomic bomb might have set a precident of America's 'badassness' and our willingness to protect our country at ALL costs. That has probably aided in our peace over the years. Whether the bomb was morally right to drop or not is always going to be debatable.
I think one would have done the trick, not sure why the second one was dropped though...
s/watches.html]ed hardy uhren[/url]
And for the record I HATE slate.com. Never read something good or inspiring there. Always rhetoric and democrap.

October 07, 2010


ghd said:
And for the record I HATE slate.com. Never read something good or inspiring there. Always rhetoric and democrap.
October 08, 2010


jovial_cynic said:
ed/ghd - for the record, for the record. Got it. Thanks.
October 09, 2010


add comments. you are limited to 5,000 characters:

<< your name
<< your email (won't be displayed)
<< your website / location
<< type these numbers: 273623 (plus 0NE)

(html -enabled- / no scripts)

<< Comments temporarily disabled >>

Rules: Don't spam. Don't harrass. Don't be a jerk. Your IP address (54.225.16.10) will be logged.